|
I removed some info on request. I know Wikipedia is not censored, but we want to avoid doing harm. I will put the info back after some time. Von Restorff (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully acknowledge the concerns that have been raised. However, I am sorry, but I see no consensus for your edit in that discussion. User:Gandalf61 edited the section to soften the wording and that's fine. However, when the inquest resumes we will need to report its conclusion in any case. An independent admin has confirmed the position at User talk:Shumphreys. It should be remembered that 'The Times' stated, in bold, that this was suicide so it is reliably reported. 'This is London' is the website of the 'London Evening Standard' and is also reliable. There is also the question of precedent; there are plenty of deaths and tragedies; not only suicides but murders, shootings, plane crashes etc where relatives of those involved might find the details distressing. Finally, if the person concerned is the sister of Driver, I fully understand her upset. If his relatives find our article distressing, and I fully understand why this would be so, surely the way forward is for them not to look up the article? I am, therefore, reverting to the compromise version. TerriersFan (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have invited editors who have been involved in the earlier discussion to comment here so that we can get a rounded view. TerriersFan (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I was OK with the original wording, I like the softening that User:Gandalf61 did and now prefer that version. But I'm against dropping the information all together.Naraht (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, in this case I do not need consensus. You need consensus. We have policy saying: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.".
But even if you do get a consensus I will still editwar with you until I am blocked. If this is causing mr. Drivers family unnecessary extra grief I will do everything within my power to stop that from happening. We are not dropping this information. We are giving griefing people a bit of time to adjust. The first couple of days are really difficult, especially with suicides. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it does not matter if we lag behind real life events a bit. I hope you do understand that our Wikipedia article is not very important in this context. Von Restorff (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How the heck does WP:Burden apply, the information about his death is better referenced than anything else in the article. And none of the points in Wikipedia is not a newspaper apply. And a threat to editwar until blocked should get one blocked immediately.Naraht (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to give evidence the addition of this information is an improvement. You haven't. The title applies, because newspapers need to give up to date news. Von Restorff (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to block me for that. It will be an honor to be blocked in defense of a grieving family. Or maybe you should think about this. Is it really important to have this information on the article right now? Why are we unable to give them some time? Von Restorff (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop editwarring, use this talkpage. Von Restorff (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are no longer claiming either WP:Burden or Wikipedia is not a newspaper? It has been a month and a half since his death. Since you have expressed a willingness to be blocked to defend the article, why should I believe that you will accept *any* number of editors expressing the opinion that it should be on the page? And given *that* why should any attempt be made to use the talkpage?Naraht (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone asks us to do him/her a favor. Per WP:AGF I am required to think he/she is doing this in good faith. I do not understand why the truthiness of Wikipedia is more important than real people who are upset. Von Restorff (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we do a compromise? As little as possible? No gruesome details? Von Restorff (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First, you cannot claim to remove information from the article until you are blocked. You do not own this article and attempting to control what information is or is not included on this article will not be tolerated.
- Second, we do not remove information from an article "because of a grieving family." You specifically state that you know that Wikipedia is no censored, yet you propose we remove information about a well known person simply because they have family and friends. This will not fly and completely contradicts your supposed understanding of censorship on Wikipedia.
- Wikipedia is not doing harm by listing the cause of death for an individual. If it has been reported in the news, multiple times (both the death and the funeral), then Wikipedia is doing absolutely no harm by repeating what news sources have stated. We report the death of individuals every single day, with the means of death if available, and it has not caused any known harm to anyone so far. The359 (Talk) 03:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to include the names of the kids and wife? Are they notable? Von Restorff (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, I lean toward agreeing with User:Von Restorff on the name of the wife and kids, while WP:BLPName theoretically applies only to family members of the living, I don't think it is a stretch here. OTOH, in terms of 48 hours. He passed away 45 days ago. Do you feel that having that information not included until he has passed away for 47 days is that much of a difference?Naraht (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly: yes. I think it matters. Sorry if I am weird. Von Restorff (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:BLPNAME#Privacy_of_names. I understand I am not convincing enough, but c'mon people, work with me here, please help make it a bit less sensationalistic. Von Restorff (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the funeral be mentioned? Why do we need that date? We can reasonably assume there was a funeral or a cremation, but do we need to have those details in the article? Von Restorff (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the names of the family members because they are not notable. Von Restorff (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's the right call.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree, though I think the language could be softened even more. This hits on the whole "Do no harm" thing; if we can convey the same information without causing distress to the family, why would we not do that? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It could and it should. Unfortunately I am not a native speaker. The much easier solution would be that certain people would've simply read my message and decided to focus their attention on something else where they could've had a positive influence and actually improved Wikipedia. I think Jimbo understands our encyclopaedia and our ideals of not being censored are not a reason to ignore a polite request made by a grieving person; Wikipedia is simply not very important in the grand scheme of things. Von Restorff (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. What's the point in being a Wikipedian if you lose your humanity? Brammers (talk/c) 17:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this discussion. As a novice Wikipaedia user I'm not sure whether I'm commenting in the right place.
At oen point yesterday the suicide references had gone from the article on my brother Jon as I had requested, and I thought that humanity had prevailed. Thank you to all who assisted.
But the reference is back, put in again by someone who didn't know him and should have no interest in the manner of his death. Small children, elderly parents and close family members are howling with grief over this, its grotesque that no consideration is being given to their wishes. How would you feel if it was your father or son that people were reading about?
Please, please help to have this detail removed, it has no relevance to his academic career which should be the thing of interest to Wiki audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shumphreys (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're commenting in the right place.
- Shumphreys, if it were up to me, the article would omit all mention of your brother's death until some later date. I just don't think whatever marginal encyclopedic value that information has outweighs the real distress its presence is evidently causing you or your family. But I'm pretty sure the consensus of the community will be that it is appropriate to retain at least a short statement of what happened, as does the article's current version. In all honesty, you're probably going to need to accept that. If you do wish to continue requesting the removal of this information, you might need to help us understand how having it here causes you additional distress, given that the same information is freely available elsewhere on the internet.
- It might provide you some consolation to know that there are presently very few people reading this article. A large proportion of those page views would be from webcrawlers and other bots, and from Wikipedia contributors. The recent spike is certainly from Wikipedia contributors as it's mirrored in the talk page views.
- Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User Naraht, TerriersFan and the359 have expressed their opinions. Users Shumphreys, Von Restorff, UltraExactZZ, Brammers and Adrian J. Hunter disagreed. Since the burden of evidence that an addition to an article is an improvement lies with the editors who added or restored material there is no consensus for including the material. Von Restorff (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the information. Von Restorff (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Von Restorff counts Adrian J Hunter and UltraExactZZ as agreeing with him, I fail to see how they are. From Adrian J. Hunter "In all honesty, you're probably going to need to accept that.", UltraExactZZ's (and Jimbo's) comments were about the removal of family members, *not* the removal of the method of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)
- Please call me Von Restorff. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction made.Naraht (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adrian J. Hunter wrote: "Shumphreys, if it were up to me, the article would omit all mention of your brother's death until some later date. I just don't think whatever marginal encyclopedic value that information has outweighs the real distress its presence is evidently causing you or your family". Personally I would include the fact he died, but the location and cause of death and the fact there was a funeral and not a cremation and the date of that funeral and the names of his kids and wife are all unimportant. Von Restorff (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And UltraZZ?Naraht (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't you notice the fact we are talking about two different things? Please reread what I wrote, you seem to misunderstand. And you seem to misunderstand what Adrian J. Hunter wrote too. Von Restorff (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello and thank you. I'm sure that there are articles elsewhere online, however wikipedia is a first point of call for young and old people (and their friends) who may be less web savvy, and it also carries some sort of "verification" as a source of accurate information. If few people are accessing the article, and I know from first hand upset that those who are may be family, there is even less reason for it to contain hugely tragic and upsetting detail. I hope my brothers wonderful history as someone who may actually change the world through his research (helping for example those suffering with dementia) will be the reason that Wiki users may access this article rather than the tragic circumstances of his deathShumphreys (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is proposed as consensus that the Jon Driver article be restored to the [1] by Von Restorff which contains as text
Driver was born in Halifax, England on 4 July 1962.[1] He was brought up in Hull. Driver had a wife and two sons.[2]
Driver died on 28 November 2011 after apparently jumping from the Hornsey Lane Bridge in North London.[1][3]
. It is further proposed that if this information is not restored at this time that a specific date in the future be set when this information be added to the article, not exceeding one year after death.Naraht (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No we shouldn't vote about this. Opinions suck, Wikipedia is based on facts. It is time to stop debating about this. Please, I beg you, focus your attention elsewhere; there are plenty of places on Wikipedia where you can have a positive influence. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to vote about this, and draw even more attention to it, and this proposal is a bad idea. E.g. why would the location of his death be important? Why would the cause of death matter? It is simply not very important. First we need to focus on describing him as a scientist, and we don't even have a good explanation of what he did and what he published and who he worked with etc. etc. Von Restorff (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Naraht: Why do you think you should focus your attention on this page? You are needed elsewhere. I can handle this, but I do not understand very complicated mathematical articles. We have hundreds (or thousands) of articles that need to be looked at by someone who understand complicated mathematical formulas. Von Restorff (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess is that you've looked back at my contributions to find that I've done a few articles on Mathematics. You'll find more such as [2] in regard to WP:Censor. I would submit that the entire concept of WP:Persondata indicates that location of death is important. I am also working on improving the article in other ways. And it has been more than 48 hours since your indication that you wanted the mention of suicide removed for 48 hours. Should it be brought back now or once the article has sat in the current situation for 48 hours? How can one person control what is on an article without compromising the founding pillars? I am *trying* to seek consensus in a formal manner.Naraht (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your guess is wrong, the third userbox on your userpage says: "This user is an advanced mathematician". To be honest, what you are trying to do is not the same as what you are doing. Did you read WP:Persondata? You must have missed "Be specific, but not to the point of listing a street address. Usual formats are City/Village, State/Province, Country; or City/Village, country; or State/Province, Country; etc." because you want to include the name of the bridge. Von Restorff (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have 2 perfectly respectable sources, one local publication, and one tabloid with a sensationalist headline. The respectable sources are: The Times of London, which does not mention manner of death at all; and the British Neuroscience Association, a highly respected professional body, which also does not give manner of death. The local publication, This is Hull and East Riding, or Hull Daily Mail, says only "The exact cause of his death is unclear." Only the tabloid Evening Standard (which, to be clear, is not a totally awful tabloid but which is distributed free and does tend towards sensationalist headlines), makes a big hoo-ha about suicide. I think that on balance, we should follow the sources, and view his manner of passing as not worthy of mention. I can imagine circumstances in which we would need to overrule family wishes and publish anyway - if there were some viable reason why the public interest could only be so served. But what I see here suggests to me that there is no reason to deviate from the way the best sources have handled the question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimbo, the Times of London, the respectable source, mentions the manner of death at the bottom of the article. [3]Naraht (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite; there is no more reliable newspaper in the UK than The Times and that states, in bold, that Driver's death was suicide. If mentioning this is so hurtful why does the family blog, here, link to the Times report? I would add a couple of other points; though we have assumed good faith about the identity of the user; are we sure about this? Certainly the passage above causes me to have doubts. Secondly, are we now going to remove encyclopaedic material from other pages at the request of connected people? Finally, the 'This is London' website is written by the same jounalists as write the Daily Mail. The mode of death should go back, at least using the same words as 'The Times' used. TerriersFan (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since no objection has been raised after over four days, I have added the cause of death as reported by The Times. TerriersFan (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Against consensus. Bad move. Von Restorff (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. Objection to what?[reply]
- I made a proposal to put Drivers suicide in the article, in a way as Jimbo says "the way the best sources have handled the question" - no objection, except from you, has been made. TerriersFan (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? And where is the consensus? If you would've had consensus for the changes you made it would've been easy to answer these two simple questions. Von Restorff (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only one editor appears to feel we should not report what the best available source - The Times - has reported, so I have restored TerriersFan's suggested edit. Exok (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Exok. Include details on death.Naraht (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The cause of death should be included. Von Restorff has just removed it again. TerriersFan (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just added this wholly reliable source from The Daily Telegraph which states "Jon Driver suffered fatal injuries after jumping from Hornsey Lane Bridge, Archway, north London." TerriersFan (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to try to get a new consensus (consensus can change), but please respect the BRD process. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC) p.s. What is the motivation for not following the instructions in WP:Persondata?[reply]
- Von Restorff, please follow your own advice above. You do not have a single supporter of your position. TerriersFan (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be aware of the fact you do not have consensus for your addition to this article. You made a bold move, I reverted, and we discussed the change here on this talkpage. The result of the discussion is that there is no consensus for your addition. Stop editwarring and drop your stick. You tried to ignore the consensus before (22:34, 17 January). I notice you still have not answered the questions I asked on 00:36, 18 January. Von Restorff (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there is clear consensus - three editors above support the addition and a fourth has reverted your excision. Since the earlier discussion I have added a further, very clear and reliable source. Yourr accusation of edit warring is bizarre. Today I have reverted once, in contrast see your three reverts today : [4], [5] and [6]. TerriersFan (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. I like the essay WP:COMPETENCE. Please recount, you obviously made a mistake. You forgot to count those who disagree with you. I notice you still have not answered the questions I asked on 00:36, 18 January. Von Restorff (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Current position of recent (within last two weeks) editors/commenters.
In favor of including referenced informationon suicide: Exok, Naraht, TerriersFan, David Biddulph.
Opposed: Von Restorff.Naraht (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Funny how you exclude all the editors who gave their opinion more than 2 weeks ago and disagree with you. Do you honestly think you can simply decide that opinions given more than 14 days ago are worthless? Among those who gave their opinion more than 2 weeks ago and disagree with you is the founder of this encyclopaedia; does his opinion not count because you say so? Von Restorff (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I stopped finding this funny when you started deleting mentions valid mentions of 3RR from your talk page. "Previous Consensus" is not a valid reason for ignoring 3RR and Jimbo would be the first to indicate that his opinion means no more than any other single Wikipedia user.Naraht (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I stopped finding this funny after reading the article about karma. Jimbo is a single Wikipedia user AFAIK but please correct me if I am wrong. Ignoring 3RR wouldn't be necessary if you would both be willing to use the talkpage before reverting and willing to drop your sticks. Von Restorff (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'consensus' that you are fond of mentioning existed only in your own mind; at best there was previously a divided opinion. Jimbo's comment was based on a misunderstanding as has been pointed out. He said (with the full quote above so it can be read in context) "We have 2 perfectly respectable sources, one local publication, and one tabloid with a sensationalist headline. The respectable sources are: The Times of London, which does not mention manner of death at all; .... But what I see here suggests to me that there is no reason to deviate from the way the best sources have handled the question". In fact 'The Times' did mention that it was suicide and 'The Daily Telegraph', which I have now added has likewise. In other words, the two best news sources both mention the manner of death. TerriersFan (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the full quote it is clear he is against including the information that you want to include. I notice you still have not answered the questions I asked on 00:36, 18 January. Von Restorff (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the BNA obituary reference to the Career and Honors section. I think it belongs in those two locations (and handles a citation needed). While it of course includes Date of Death, I think the Daily Mail and Times are better references at that location in the article. I don't believe this move of reference alters the larger question above in any way however.Naraht (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. This is an improvement. Von Restorff (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should the text ", FMedSci, FBA" in the beginning of the article directly behind his name be bold? Do we just bold the name of the person or the titles too? Von Restorff (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are using the Hull Daily Mail reference for the sentence: "He was survived by his wife and two sons".
Unfortunatly that source does not mention the fact his children are both male. It does say the childrens names are Neil and Shoni. I think that in my part of the world it is not unreasonable to assume that being named Neil is an indication that you are probably a male, but Shoni is a name that is probably more commonly used for females (e.g. Shoni Schimmel) but it has been used for males as well and the name itself is not enough to determine the sex of the person.
I believe this reference doesn't belong in the place it is in now, if you can find a place where it will be more useful feel free to reinclude it. We do not need to use this source, we already have the Times reference that says: "He is survived by his wife and two sons". Nota bene: the Hull Daily Mail says: "The exact cause of his death in (sic) unclear". Von Restorff (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
